Wheeler

Federal Communications Commission chairman Thomas Wheeler this morning defended his forthcoming Net Neutrality policies in front of an audience of cable executives attending the Cable Show in Los Angeles.

“If you read some of the press accounts about what we propose to do, those of you who oppose Net Neutrality might feel like a celebration was in order,” Wheeler told the cable industry audience. “Reports that we are gutting the Open Internet rules are incorrect. I am here to say wait a minute. Put away the party hats. The Open Internet rules will be tough, enforceable and, with the concurrence of my colleagues, in place with dispatch.”

“Let me be clear,” Wheeler continued. “If someone acts to divide the Internet between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots,’ we will use every power at our disposal to stop it. I consider that to include Title II. Just because it is my strong belief that following the court’s roadmap will produce similar protections more quickly, does not mean I will hesitate to use Title II if warranted. And, in our Notice, we are asking for input as to whether this approach should be used.”

Wheeler also used the forum to acknowledge that cable companies are now the “principal provider of broadband” in the United States, a slap at telephone company DSL service that continues to lose market share.

Wheeler’s comments primarily addressed intentional interference with Internet traffic and remained silent about whether the FCC would allow providers to delay network upgrades that gradually allow service to degrade while selling improved “Quality of Service” contracts to content providers like Netflix.

“Prioritizing some traffic by forcing the rest of the traffic into a congested lane won’t be permitted under any proposed Open Internet rule,” Wheeler insisted. “We will not allow some companies to force Internet users into a slow lane so that others with special privileges can have superior service.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s Speech and Chat with Michael Powell 4-30-14.mp4[/flv]

FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler spoke before the 2014 NCTA Cable Show this morning to speak about Net Neutrality and chat with NCTA president Michael Powell. (39:15)

Wheeler’s remarks in full can be found below the jump:

… Continue Reading

Oh the humanity!

Last week, advocates for an Open Internet were up in arms over a report in the Wall Street Journal indicating FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler was about to solve his Net Neutrality problem by redefining it to mean the exact opposite of its intended goal to keep Internet traffic out of provider-established toll lanes.

Former FCC chairman Michael Powell created the current definition of the Internet as “an information service” that has been repeatedly invalidated by the courts. Today he is the president of the nation’s largest cable industry lobbying group, the NCTA. (Image: Mark Fiore)

“Regulators are proposing new rules on Internet traffic that would allow broadband providers to charge companies a premium for access to their fastest lanes,” said the report, quoting an unnamed source.

Wheeler’s proposal follows the agency’s latest defeat in the courts in its latest effort to define net policy. The D.C. Court of Appeals objects to the FCC’s rule-making powers under the current “light touch” regulatory framework introduced by former FCC chairman Michael Powell. Since the first term of the Bush Administration, the FCC has avoided reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunication service,” which would place it firmly under its regulatory authority. Instead, it has continued to define the Internet as “an information service,” under which there is little precedent to support Net Neutrality rules.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wheeler was planning to introduce a new Net Neutrality policy that would ban blatant attempts to censor or block access to Internet websites, but would allow providers to monetize access to its broadband pipes by giving preferential treatment to traffic from certain content providers. Wheeler’s proposal would allow any company to pay for faster access to customers, so long as providers charged an undefined fair price to all-comers.

Wheeler said the FCC would have the authority to deal with providers unwilling to maintain a level playing field for content companies willing to pay extra, but was much more vague about how the regulator would protect websites unwilling to pay extra for traffic guarantees.

Net Neutrality proponents contend Wheeler’s proposal is exactly what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent – an Internet toll lane only affordable to deep-pocketed giant corporations. For everyone else, including startups and smaller companies, customers could experience the type of slowdowns Netflix users experienced earlier this year — congestion-related buffering that disappeared almost instantly once Netflix signed a paid contract with Comcast for a more direct connection.

“With this proposal, the FCC is aiding and abetting the largest ISPs in their efforts to destroy the open Internet,” said Free Press CEO Craig Aaron. “Giving ISPs the green light to implement pay-for-priority schemes will be a disaster for startups, nonprofits and everyday Internet users who cannot afford these unnecessary tolls. These users will all be pushed onto the Internet dirt road, while deep-pocketed Internet companies enjoy the benefits of the newly created fast lanes.”

“For technologists and entrepreneurs alike this is a worst-case scenario,” Eric Klinker, chief executive of BitTorrent Inc., a popular Internet technology for people to swap digital movies or other content, told the Wall Street Journal. “Creating a fast lane for those that can afford it is by its very definition discrimination.”

It’s even worse than that for consumer groups like Free Press.

Charging another fee to get content on your broadband connection represents a massive business opportunity for broadband companies. But Free Press’ Craig Aaron says it would be a bad deal for Web companies, especially those that can’t afford to pay more for premium service. National Public Radio’s Morning Edition reports. Apr. 24, 2014 (1:58)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Providers love the idea of monetizing the use of their Internet pipes. (Image: Mark Fiore)

“This is not Net Neutrality. It’s an insult to those who care about preserving the open Internet to pretend otherwise,” said Aaron. “The FCC had an opportunity to reverse its failures and pursue real Net Neutrality by reclassifying broadband under the law. Instead, in a moment of political cowardice and extreme shortsightedness, it has chosen this convoluted path that won’t protect Internet users.”

Wheeler, a former industry insider that presided over both the wireless and cable industry’s largest lobbying groups had a friendlier reception from his former colleagues.

One top cable executive admitted, “I have to say, I’m pleased.”

The cable industry claims they need to attract more investment to manage upgrades of their broadband networks now coming under strain from the online video revolution.

“Somebody has to pay for this, and if they weren’t going to let companies pay for enhanced transport and delivery…it just seemed like this was going to come back to the consumer,” said the cable executive.

So far neither Wheeler or the FCC has released the draft proposal for Net Neutrality 2.0 and won’t until just before it votes on it next month.

A day after the story leaked, Wheeler wrote a damage control blog post to correct what he called “misinformation” about the proposed rules:

Wheeler is keeping the exact language of his Net Neutrality proposal to himself until just before holding a vote on it.

To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted.

Incorrect accounts have reported that the earlier policies of the Commission have been abandoned. Two points are relevant here:

1. The Court of Appeals made it clear that the FCC could stop harmful conduct if it were found to not be “commercially reasonable.” Acting within the constraints of the Court’s decision, the Notice will propose rules that establish a high bar for what is “commercially reasonable.” In addition, the Notice will seek ideas on other approaches to achieve this important goal consistent with the Court’s decision. The Notice will also observe that the Commission believes it has the authority under Supreme Court precedent to identify behavior that is flatly illegal.
2. It should be noted that even Title II regulation (which many have sought and which remains a clear alternative) only bans “unjust and unreasonable discrimination.”

The allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded. That is exactly what the “commercially unreasonable” test will protect against: harm to competition and consumers stemming from abusive market activity.

But Wheeler ignored one glaring change his proposal would make – permitting providers to monetize the performance of select Internet traffic. Currently, customers choose from a menu of available Internet speeds. Under Wheeler’s definition of Net Neutrality, a provider selling “up to” a certain amount of speed is under no obligation to actually deliver that speed. But that same provider could sell “insurance” to content producers promising certain network packets will have a better chance of reaching the customer on a timely basis, while non-paying content might not. That could make all the difference between a watchable streaming movie and one constantly pausing to “buffer.”

As long as everyone is free to pay Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and AT&T the same (more or less) for preferred treatment, all is well in Wheeler’s world.

Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, coined the phrase “Net Neutrality.” He discusses how the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed changes could affect the average consumer and it’s not good news. From NPR’s All Things Considered. Apr. 24, 2014 (3:51)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The New York Times editorial page wasn’t fooled:

Dividing traffic on the Internet into fast and slow lanes is exactly what the Federal Communications Commission would do with its proposed regulations, unveiled this week. And no amount of reassurances about keeping competition alive will change that fact.

[…] In this new world, smaller content providers and start-ups that could not pay for preferential treatment might not be able to compete because their delivery speeds would be much slower. And consumers would have to pay more because any company that agrees to strike deals with phone and cable companies would undoubtedly pass on those costs to their users.

The F.C.C. proposal claims to protect competition by requiring that any deal between a broadband company and a content provider be “commercially reasonable.” But figuring out what is reasonable will be very difficult, and the commission will struggle to enforce that standard. The rules would also prohibit broadband companies from blocking content by, for example, making it impossible for users to access a service like Skype that competes with their own products.

[…] Mr. Wheeler is seeking public comment on this option, but he is not in favor of it. Even though the appeals court has said the F.C.C. has authority to reclassify broadband, the agency has not done so because phone and cable companies, along with their mostly Republican supporters in Congress, strongly oppose it.

Michael J. Copps, a former FCC commissioner confirmed big telecommunications companies are spending millions to lobby for rules that would allow them to tilt the scales in their favor.

Wheeler’s “is a lot closer to what they wanted than what we wanted,” Copps told the New York Times. “It reflects a lot more input from them. The courts did not tell Wheeler to take the road that he is reportedly taking.”

That Wheeler would take an approach that coincidentally follows a model heavily favored by the telecommunications companies he used to represent should come as no surprise. Stop the Cap! repeatedly warned Wheeler’s appointment as FCC chairman would likely lead to disaster for consumers. A lifelong industry lobbyist (and investor) is unlikely to develop a world view that strays too far beyond the industry’s groupthink on telecom policy.

Wheeler may actually believe his policies represent the best way forward for the telecommunications industry he now oversees. A lot of supporters of Zeppelin Luftschiffbau used to believe blimps were the future of aviation, until May 6, 1937 when the Hindenburg burst into flames and crashed in Lakehurst, N.J.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fiore Goodbye Net Neutrality Hello Gilded Age Internet 2-14.flv[/flv]

Mark Fiore uses animation in his editorial cartoon explaining the demise of Net Neutrality and the beginning of the Internet’s Gilded Age. (1:53)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Who Wins and Loses on Net Neutrality 4-25-14.flv[/flv]

The Cost of Internet Fast Lanes: Bloomberg News confronts James Cronin, chief technology officer for Venda, with the industry view that telecom companies need more investment to upgrade and expand their broadband networks. Cronin thinks eliminating Net Neutrality would be a real mess. (5:11)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Will dismantling net neutrality stymie innovation 4-24-14.flv[/flv]

The Federal Communications Commission is on the brink of changing the Net Neutrality principle, which allows consumers unfettered access to web content, and limits the ability of Internet service providers to block or filter material. New guidelines would allow some companies to charge more for faster service. PBS’ Gwen Ifill talks to Cecilia Kang of The Washington Post about what’s at stake. (6:40)

Aereo will face off with broadcasters next week in the U.S. Supreme Court over the legality of the online video provider’s business plan — using dime-sized individual antennas to receive over-the-air local stations and stream them to paying subscribers over the Internet.

On April 22, Aereo will appeal for its future as it presents its case to the high court in defense of a consumer’s right to access local stations over the air, even if a third-party installs an antenna on their behalf.

Broadcasters consider Aereo just another end run around copyright law, arguing the online service has no right to profit off the resale of their signals to consumers without permission and compensation.

Today Aereo launched a website, ProtectMyAntenna.org that frames its legal case as a basic viewing rights issue. Aereo says the broadcasters’ intransigence is nothing new — they also fought cable television and the videocassette recorder in the courts in the past, suggesting both technologies were stealing their signals.

“What is at stake in this case is much bigger than Aereo,” says the website. “We believe that consumers are entitled to use a modern, cloud-based, version of an antenna and DVR and that consumers should not be constrained to 1950’s era technology to watch free-to-air broadcast television. The broadcasters’ positions in this case, if sustained, would impair cloud innovation and threaten the myriad benefits to individuals, companies, and the economy at large of the advances in cloud computing and cloud storage.”

The Obama Administration has sided with the broadcasters and is seeking time to speak before the Court on the broadcasters’ behalf. Consumer groups are largely lined up behind Aereo, claiming online video competition is something worth protecting.

The crux of the case is likely to be which side is correct in their interpretation of what defines a “public performance,” which makes all the difference in determining whether Aereo must pay broadcasters or not. Private viewing at home is protected by earlier case-law and if Aereo is found to simply be facilitating home viewing, it will likely be deemed legal. Aereo assigns a single antenna to each customer, a fact they hope will strengthen its argument they are not redistributing programming to the masses. How the signal gets to the customer, over an antenna cable or the Internet, should not make any difference.

Broadcasters are hoping for a different interpretation — one popular in California courts, that would find any redistribution of programming over the Internet to be a public performance. Several other ventures have tried to launch virtual cable systems that streamed over the air stations and all were quickly shut down by west coast courts. Aereo has better lawyers, deeper pockets, and apparently a better argument that won favor in several eastern U.S. courts last year.

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide Aereo’s fate. If it loses, expect it to close down operations immediately. If Aereo wins, the company expects to continue expanding into other television markets across the country.

Aereo currently provides service in 11 U.S. cities.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Yahoo Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia on the Future of TV 4-17-14.flv[/flv]

Katie Couric from Yahoo! News sat down for an extensive interview about Aereo with its CEO Chet Kanojia. Kanojia argues broadcasters were already well-compensated when they received free spectrum for their stations. (20:20)

Phillip “The circus is in town” Dampier

Yesterday afternoon I got to experience both the pain of having a tooth pulled and watch Comcast and Time Warner Cable defend its merger for more than three hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Festival of Nonsense from Comcast’s top lobbyist David Cohen and Time Warner Cable’s chief financial officer Arthur Minson hurt more.

Despite the $45 billion dollar deal, the real powers that be couldn’t be bothered to turn up at the hearing. Comcast’s chief executive was nowhere to be found — perhaps he was playing golf with President Obama again. Comcast’s top lobbyist David Cohen showed up instead, wearing an outfit that looked like it was stuffed with cash waiting to fall from his pockets into the hands of his “friends” on Capitol Hill. Cohen is a well-known Democratic money bundler who raised $1.44 million for the president’s reelection campaign in 2011 and 2012, and $2.22 million since 2007. (Obama spent time in Cohen’s Philadelphia home as well, part of a DNC fundraising party.)

Perhaps Time Warner Cable CEO Robert Marcus was unavailable because he was too busy counting the $8.52 million he was paid before agreeing to sell the company. Don’t expect him at the next hearing either, because he is shopping for a bigger safe to hold the $80 million he will receive for agreeing to change Time Warner Cable’s name to Comcast.

The other usual suspects were also missing in action. Not a peep from the major networks or cable programmers at the hearing. Instead, the Senate endured a guy with a golf channel nobody ever heard of using the hearing to try to get his calls returned by Time Warner and a wireless provider who believes his technology is faster than fiber. Sure it is.

Brought to you in part by America’s cable industry.

I suppose it’s also worth mentioning Christopher Yoo – Comcast’s intellectual sock puppet straight out of the cable company’s home town of Philadelphia. He serves at the pleasure of the “Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition” (cough) at the University of Pennsylvania. The “center” is financially supported by the cable industry. David Cohen just happens (by sheer coincidence) to chair the university’s Board of Trustees. Yoo’s testimony could be boiled down to a nod in Cohen’s direction with an affirming, “whatever he said.”

The Cohen and Minson Comedy Hour began with opening statements extolling the virtues of supersizing Comzilla, with dubious claims about its benefits for consumers.

Without laughing, read the following out loud:

“We welcome this opportunity to discuss the proposed transaction between Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) and Time Warner Cable Inc. (“TWC”), and the substantial and multiple pro-consumer, pro-competitive, and public interest benefits that it will generate, including through competitive entry in segments neither company today can meaningfully serve on its own,” the two companies wrote in their joint opening statement.

Cohen

“Comcast and TWC do not compete for customers in any market – either for broadband, video, or voice services. The transaction will not reduce competition or consumer choice at all. Comcast and TWC serve separate and distinct geographic areas. This simple but critically important fact has been lost on many who would criticize our transaction, but it cannot be ignored – competition simply will not be reduced. Rather, the transaction will enhance competition in key market segments, including advanced business services and advertising.”

To emphasize just how little this merger will impact the current state of non-competition in the broadband marketplace, Comcast repeatedly emphasized you can’t subscribe to a competing cable company today and still won’t tomorrow:

“Consumers in Comcast’s territories cannot subscribe to TWC for broadband, video, or phone services. And TWC customers cannot switch to Comcast. For that reason, this is not a horizontal transaction under merger review standards, and there will be no reduction in competition or consumer choice,” said the written statement.

In other words, since there was no competition between cable companies before, making sure consumers still don’t have a choice is not anti-competitive.

Watch the entire hearing on the Senate Judiciary Committee website.

(The hearing begins at the 24 minute mark.)

Here are some other “benefits” promised by Cohen and Minson:

Post-transaction, Comcast intends to make substantial incremental upgrades to TWC’s systems to migrate them to all-digital, freeing up bandwidth to deliver greater speeds. For example, Comcast typically bonds 8 QAM channels together in its systems, and Comcast’s most popular broadband service tier offers speeds of 25/5Mbps upstream across its footprint. In comparison, TWC bonds 4 QAM channels in nearly half of its systems, and its most commonly purchased service tier offers speeds of 15/1Mbps. Comcast’s fastest residential broadband tier offers speeds of 505/100Mbps; TWC’s current top speeds are 100/5Mbps. Comcast’s investments in the TWC systems will also improve network reliability, network security, and convenience to TWC customers.

Minson

Of course, nothing prevented either company from boosting speeds without a $45 billion merger deal. In fact, Comcast is doing exactly that this week. Marcus’ own revival plan for TWC, dubbed TWC Maxx, promised Time Warner Cable customers would get even faster speeds than Comcast offers most of its customers.

Time Warner Cable now advertises it does not have usage caps on broadband. Comcast cannot say the same, although it tries very hard to tapdance around the matter by calling the 300GB monthly cap spreading into more and more Comcast territories a “data threshold.”

Comcast’s speed upgrades for TWC customers are likely to come with a big catch — an arbitrary usage allowance that limits their usefulness. By the way, that 505Mbps service is available only from Comcast’s extremely limited fiber network that the overwhelming majority of customers cannot get.

The transaction will similarly speed the availability of advanced Wi-Fi equipment in consumers’ homes. The quality of broadband service depends not only on the “last-mile” infrastructure but also the delivery of the signal over the last few yards. Comcast has led the entire broadband industry in rolling out advanced gateway Wi-Fi routers to approximately 8 million households and small businesses, giving these customers faster speeds (up to 270 Mbps downstream as compared to 85 Mbps downstream from the prior generation devices) and better performance over their home and business wireless networks. In contrast, TWC only recently began deploying advanced in-home Wi-Fi routers. With the greater purchasing power and economies of scale resulting from the transaction, Comcast can not only offer TWC customers access to today’s best routers, but also invest in and deploy next-generation router technologies for all of the combined company’s customers.

Comcast doesn’t like to mention that “advanced Wi-Fi” equipment costs customers $8 a month… forever. Comcast is also using it to boost its own Wi-Fi service by sharing it with the neighbors. This merger “benefit” will cost customers almost $100 a year. Customers can do better buying their own equipment and don’t need a merger to make that decision.

The transaction will give Comcast the geographic reach, economies of scale, customer density, and return on investment needed to massively expand Wi-Fi hotspots across the combined company’s footprint, including in the Midwest, South, and West, particularly in areas like Cleveland/Pittsburgh, the Carolinas, Texas, and California, where there will be greater density and clustering of systems. Our goal is to provide greater Wi-Fi availability that allows the combined company’s customers to access the Internet in more places, more conveniently, and at no additional charge.

Your usage allowance will likely apply to this “free Wi-Fi” that most customers cannot access because they live in an area where neither company offers it now and likely won’t anytime soon.

The transaction will also enable Comcast to invest in network expansions and last-mile improvements that provide an even stronger foundation for innovative applications, including education, healthcare, the delivery of government services, and home security and energy management. And with greater coverage and density of systems, Comcast will also have the ability and incentive to build out and make available interconnection points in more geographic regions. This will be especially beneficial to companies like Google, Netflix, and Amazon, which aggregate massive data traffic when they deliver their own and others’ services to consumers.

For the right price. Nothing precluded Comcast or Time Warner Cable from investing some of their lush profits into improvements for customers. But why bother when your only serious competitor is usually DSL. Investment in broadband networks has declined for years in favor of profit-taking. Making Comcast bigger introduces no new market forces that would provoke it to improve service. In fact, Comcast’s massive size and reach would likely deter would-be competitors from entering a market where Comcast can use predatory pricing and retention offers to keep customers from switching.

Helping people successfully cross the digital divide requires ongoing outreach. To increase awareness of the Internet Essentials program, Comcast has made significant and sustained efforts within local communities. To date, those outreach efforts have included:

• Distributing over 33 million free brochures to school districts and community partners for (available in 14 different languages).
• Broadcasting more than 3.6 million public service announcements with a combined value of nearly $48 million.
• Forging more than 8,000 partnerships with community-based organizations, government agencies, and elected officials at all levels of government.

Cohen does not mention the company planned to offer Internet Essentials earlier than it did, but held it back for political reasons.

“I held back because I knew it may be the type of voluntary commitment that would be attractive to the chairman” of the Federal Communications Commission, Cohen said in a 2012 interview. Comcast’s generosity was limited. It specifically designed its discount Internet program to make it difficult to qualify and protect its regular-priced broadband offerings. The goodwill from handing out Comcast sales brochures and getting free exposure in the media offers little to customers. Comcast also has a way of getting the community-based organizations it “partners” with to advocate for Comcast’s business interests.

“Sometimes we need a kick in the butt.” — Cohen

If only the government got out of the way and approve the merger, Comcast will improve on its already amazing customer service:

Improving the customer experience is a top priority at Comcast. We are investing billions of dollars in our network infrastructure and are developing innovative products and features to make it easier and more convenient for our customers to interact with us. While our satisfaction results are beginning to rise, we know we still have work to do and are laser-focused on continuing to improve our customers’ experiences in a number of ways.  Comcast has improved its customer satisfaction ratings significantly. Since 2010, Comcast has increased its J.D. Power’s Overall Satisfaction score by nearly 100 points as a video provider, and close to 80 points in High Speed Data – more than any other provider in our industry during the same period.

Twice nothing is still nothing. Cohen even admitted at the hearing Comcast’s progress at improving customer service is not as rosy as his written testimony might suggest.

“It bothers us we have so much trouble delivering high quality of service to customers on a regular basis,” Cohen said. “Sometimes, we need a kick in the butt.”

That has never worked before. Comcast has kicked its customers around since at least 2007 when it also promised major customer service improvements that turned out to be figments of a press release. Comcast’s “laser-focused” efforts to improve instead won it the 2014 Consumerist Worst Company in America award this week and more than 100,000 consumers signing petitions vehemently opposing the merger.

Comcast has a long record of improving consumers’ online experiences and working cooperatively with other companies on interconnection, peering and transit.

Just ask any Comcast customer about their Netflix viewing experience lately and how it took a checkbook to improve matters. Ask any online video competitor whether Comcast is a good neighbor when it exempts its own video traffic from its “usage threshold” while making sure to count competitors’ traffic against it.

Comcast also likes to suggest Americans are awash in competitive options for broadband service. Why there is DSL, satellite broadband, fiber, wireless Internet, public libraries, and books.

In fact, Comcast’s filing points to various “competitors” that don’t even exist yet, if they ever will. Comcast suggests Google Fiber is popping up everywhere, despite the fact Google announced it was delaying its fiber rollout in Austin, and most of its latest expansion plans lack firm commitments to deploy and are framed only in the context of opening a dialogue with targeted communities.

Satellite Internet speeds are severely limited and usage-capped. The same is true for exorbitantly expensive mobile broadband. Comparing a $40 unlimited broadband offering from Time Warner Cable to Verizon Wireless’ 4GB for $50 mobile wireless Internet package is silly.

Comcast characterizes the competitive telecom marketplace as a veritable dogfight, but it looks a lot more like a well-executed dog and pony show. Just how rabid are these dogs?

• Verizon’s pit bull zeal to compete has more bark than bite. Verizon Wireless customers can sign up for Comcast or Time Warner Cable service in Verizon stores (woof);
• Comcast’s rottweiler isn’t supposed to get along well with others, but it manages pretty well pitching Verizon Wireless service (grrr).

An hour into the hearing, it was clear there was some bipartisan discomfort with the merger, with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) leading the charge with pointed questions cutting through Comcast’s government relations fluff.

“I’m against this deal,” Franken concluded. “My concern is that as Comcast continues to get bigger, you’ll have even more power to exercise that leverage — to squeeze consumers.”

Like an orange.